As the cases originated in South Australia, the High Court considered the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA). FREE Background Report. In both appeals, the suspected perpetrator of the abuse was the father. Previous Previous post: Jaensch v Coffey [1984] HCA 52. Sullivan v Moody. *Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Ltd *Gifford v Strang Patrick Stevedoring Pty Ltd By Professor Bernadette McSherry. The 1989 amendment to section 413, enacted as part of the Child Support Standards Act, was the Legislature's response to the federal government's mandate that States establish mandatory guidelines for determining child support awards (42 USC §§ 654, 655; see also, Matter of Rose v Moody… Both appeals involved situations where a child (or children) had been examined by medical practitioners and/or social workers, and appeared (in the opinion of the examiners) to be victims of sexual abuse. It was argued that the Respondents breached this obligation by negligently forming their opinion and causing a “likely disruption of the parent/child relationship… directly against the interests of the child”. So lawyers for manufacturer defendants urged Judge Moody to halt or “stay” the local case in Sullivan County Circuit Court pending the Supreme Court’s decision in the Effler case. Caparo Industries PLC v Dickman [1990] UKHL 2 is a leading English tort law case on the test for a duty of care. Louis Sullivan was born on September 3, 1856, in Boston, Massachusetts to parents Patrick Sullivan and Andrienne List. Furthermore, there were extensive provisions from the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA), referenced in paragraph 21, that if a medical practitioner, nurse, psychologist, social or welfare worker suspects on “reasonable grounds” that an offence has been committed; they were obliged to notify an officer of the Department of their suspicion. Case outline (Chris) Thomas Patrick Sullivan (Appellant) - was suspected of sexually abusing his daughter, he appealed to the high court claiming the plaintiff Margaret Catherine Moody choice to proceed with these claim were negligent. * indicates required. (particularly public authorities) (Sullivan v Moody) • Role-based coherence • Judges to respect division between parliament and community law making bodies • Gaol-based coherence • Public values and community goals. Loading ... Clyne v The New South Wales Bar Association 1960 104 CLR 186 - Duration: 1:04. www.studentlawnotes.com 279 … In Canada, Caparo was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young. Because of the sensitive nature of these complex issues, schools, churches and charities are exposed to great risk. However, as a consequence of the allegations and charges, both fathers allegedly suffered “shock, distress and psychiatric harm, and consequential financial loss.”. In a society with an increasing litigious culture and media avenues for complaint, schools, churches and other charities may find it difficult to balance their legal duties owed to one party, with their legal duties owed to another party. 2. Sullivan v Moody; Koehler v Cerebos If the court was to find a duty of care, would it be consistent with other laws (including other bodies of law and statute), obligations, or duties owed by the defendant? Sullivan v Moody 2001 207 CLR 562 www.studentlawnotes.com. Keep up to date with Law Case Summaries! In making this claim, the Applicants submitted it was reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged. His parents had migrated to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and Louis had an older brother, Albert Walter. Appeal dismissed with costs. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 Thompson v Connon 207 CLR 562; 75 ALJR 1570; 183 ALR 404 11 Oct 2001 Case Number: A21/2001 A23/2001. 3 1 FMLA; (3) Moody’s reduction of Clemens’s contribution units under the Plan 2 breached Moody’s contract with Clemens; and (4) payments under the Plan were 3 “wages” protected by the New York Labor Law. The appeal was brought on the submission that the Respondents: “owed a duty of care to the Applicants to carry out their duties and responsibilities and in particular the examination and diagnoses of persons and in particular children suspected of having been sexually abused….with due care, skill, discretion and diligence.” (Paragraph 7, emphasis added). IV. -- Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF --, A father was wrongfully accused of sexually assaulting his daughter, He sued for the negligently performed medical examination, There is no precise test for novel negligence cases, Must consider how it interacts with other laws (e.g. (quoting Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 2375, 45 L. Ed. Share this case by email Upon investigation, the charges were dropped and no further action was pursued against either father. 50+ videos Play all Mix - The Ed Sullivan's perform "Go Now" a song popularized by the Moody Blues. Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 Tabet v Gett (2010) 240 CLR 537 Tame v New South Wales [2002] HCA 35; Annetts v Australian Stations Pty Limited (2002) 211 CLR 317 Discrimination against a party on one hand. Reasonable foreseeability was deemed non-contentious because the appellant incontestably ‘suffered harm of the kind alleged in consequence of the negligent’2 sexual abuse allegation. Moody's: Fraser Sullivan CLO V Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture. Casenotes On Sullivan V Moody And Modbury Triangle Shopping Centre Pty Ltd V Anzil LAWS1061 - Torts 6 Pages University of New South Wales Partial Study Notes Year: Pre-2017 o If so, points towards DOC o CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board) Nature of … The High Court took the view that this over-arching duty was irreconcilable with the alleged duty of care to the Applicants. Sullivan v Moody [2001, Australia] Summers v Salomon (1857) Sunbolf v Alford [1838] Suncorp Insurance and Finance v Milano Assicurazioni [1993] Sutradhar v Natural Environment Research Council [2004] Swain v Puri [1996] Sweet v Parsley [1970] Sweet v Sommer [2005] Swift Investments v Combined English Stores Group [1989] Sykes v Harry [2001] Posted on 21 November 2014 by Bernadette McSherry. McKenna Case Page. With mind to these considerations, His Honour determined that a duty was not owed, stating in paragraph 62: “[The Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA)] required the respondents to treat the interests of the children as paramount. 348 (1904) is wholly without merit, as that case involved an acknowledgment before a notary, and such an acknowledgment unsurprisingly has not been executed by Wife and, moreover, would “not obviate the necessity of attestation by two witnesses․” 2 Daniel F. Hinkel, Pindar's Ga. Real Estate Law and Procedure § 19-56, p. 356 (6th ed. Relevant factors here are (a) the nature and degree of Dancing Delight’ s control over the risk of harm; and (b) the degree of Timothy ’s vulne rability. 17 Bowen Bridge RoadSuite 43 Level 4Herston 4006 QLD, Phone 07 3252 0011Fax 07 3257 7890Email enquiry@corneyandlind.com.au, Duties owed under privacy and defamation laws to a party on one hand. The decision of the High Court in Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 dealt with a problem of conflicting legal duties. Proximity - Criticised Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 • Facts • Judgment Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne & Callinan JJ: [573] “ …foreseeability of harm is not sufficient to give rise to a duty of care ” [578] “ The formula is not ‘ proximity ’. Australia has long struggled with the historical conflict between the development of the duty of care by reference to general principle, and the incremental development of existing categories of liability. 1. The High Court also returned to consider the “first principles” of the Tort of Negligence by considering landmark cases such as Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Hill v Chief Constable of West Yorkshire [1989] AC 53 and Yuen Kun Yeu v Attorney-General of Hong Kong [1988] AC 175. However, our “take home message” from Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 would be for the leadership and boards of schools, churches and charities that “paramount considerations” may mean one duty is higher than another. This paper analyses Sullivan and Moody and a case question given in the unitHere is an excerpt:"Sullivan v Moody1 is the principle authority for determining cases where a novel duty of care is present. 4 As an initial matter, the parties agree that the three‐step framework in 5 McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973), applies to Clemens’s “There are cases, and this is one, where to find a duty of care would so cut across other legal principles as to impair their proper application.”. On the other hand, the duties owed to another party to protect that party from abuse; and. Please contact our Client Engagement Team or call us on (07) 3252 0011 to book an appointment with one of our specialist NFP & Charity Lawyers today. It was further submitted that the Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the alleged child abuse. The Court's discussion is divided into two parts. Section 25 of the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) stated that a person dealing with a child under the provisions “shall regard the interests of the child as the paramount consideration,” and also “promote…a satisfactory relationship…within his family.”. Check Reputation Score for Damon Moody in Sullivan, IL - View Criminal & Court Records | Photos | Address, Email & Phone Number | Personal Review | $30 - … This was particularly more so where “examination of a child alleged to be a victim of abuse does not allow the examiner to form a definite opinion about whether the child has been abused, only a suspicion that it may have happened.”. It would be inconsistent with the proper and effective discharge of those responsibilities that they should be subjected to a legal duty, breach of which would sound in damages, to take care to protect persons who were suspected of being the sources of harm. Moody; Thompson v. Connon (2001) 183 ALR 404, which concerns the existence of a duty of care resulting from investigations into allegations of sexual abuse. While it is not a definitive answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach this complex issue. You can filter on reading intentions from the list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide × Id. Andrew Barker In this article, Andrew Barker, from the Faculty of Law at the University of Otago, considers two recent decisions on the duty of care in negligence: Sullivan v Moody, from the High Court of Australia, and Cooper v Hobart, from the Supreme Court of Canada. McGlone, Frances --- "A Wrong Without A Remedy: Sullivan v Moody & Ors and Thompson v Connon & Ors" [2002] PlaintiffJlAUPLA 15; (2002) 49 Plaintiff: Journal … -- Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF--Save this case. DISCUSSION. While it is not a definitive answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach this complex issue. Second, as shown in Sullivan v Moody, the salient features of the case are taken into account to determine whether the defendant owes the plaintiff a duty of care. Sullivan v Moody involved appeals to the High Court of Australia from two decisions of the Full Court of the Supreme Court of South Australia in Hillman v. Black (1996) 67 SASR 490 and CLT v. First, the Court will address Plaintiffs' ADEA claims. Click on the PDF icon to access full text of the case. Their professional or statutory responsibilities involved investigating and reporting upon, allegations that the children had suffered, and were under threat of, serious harm. defamation) – cannot give negligence to wide a range, Where there is statutory grounds for behavior (e.g. The fathers (collectively, “the Applicants”) commenced their separate proceedings, seeking damages, against the medical practitioners, social workers, their employers and the State of South of Australia (collectively, “the Respondents”). The complexity and diverse set of facts in each of these circumstances means that each situation has to be dealt with on its own set of facts. Setting a reading intention helps you organise your reading. Tag Archives: Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 No Duty to Detain Individuals with Severe Mental Health Problems: Hunter and New England Local Health District v McKenna. • If any of SF point away from a duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft. The High Court of Australia’s 2001 decision in Sullivan v Moody (‘Sullivan’)1 was very significant. Written legal advice is of course also a good safe-guard. Tremain v Pike: harm categorised as 'disease contracted from contact with rat's urine. This will often be the case for the benefit of children. Brief Relevant Facts. Most disputes in this regard have the capacity to be very costly to all parties involved. Moody, Cooper v Hobart, and problems in the South Pacific. Email Address * First Name The High Court concluded that the alleged duty of care for which the Applicants contended did not exist, and the appeal should be dismissed with costs. On the other hand, the practical ability to satisfy the duty of care owed to that same party. Doughty v Turner: harm categorised as injury caused by eruption (splashing RF, chemical reaction causing explosion not RF: however this seems to conflict with Hughes) Buy the full version of these notes or essay plans and more in our Torts B Notes. These conclusions were reported to the police, and in one case, charges were laid against the father. It represented a rare moment in modern Australian tort law — one in which a full bench of the Court was able to deliver a single substantive judgment. o Sullivan v Moody; CAL (No 14) v Motor Accidents Insurance Board (bailment law - obligated to return what was given when requested) Vulnerability of plaintiff o Was the plaintiff vulnerable to the harm and unpreventable? Our vision is to seek to provide advice and solutions that deliver redemptive, just and restoring outcomes, bringing order out of the chaos in this world. Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 This case considered the issue of foreseeability and whether or not the test of mere foreseeability was sufficient to establish a duty of care. It was further submitted that the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) obliges those dealing with children to consider the familial as well as the personal interests of the child. The duty for which the appellants contend cannot be reconciled satisfactorily.” (emphasis added). YouTube Lucas Nelson and perform "Shallow" (from A Star is … Post navigation. Counsel for the Applicants argued that the Applicants had been injured as a result of the Respondents’ negligence in “investigating and reporting upon the allegations”. The over-arching consideration was the professional and statutory obligations of the Respondents, which include treating the interests of the children as paramount. Sullivan v Moody The confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the duty of care in Australia is well known. Sullivan v Moody and Ors, Thompson v Connon and Ors - [2001] HCATrans 275 - Sullivan v Moody and Ors, Thompson v Connon and Ors (14 August 2001) - [2001] HCATrans 275 (14 August 2001) (Gleeson CJ, Gaudron J, McHugh J, Hayne J, Callinan J) - 14 August 2001 reporting child abuse), it will probably not succeed in negligence, Download Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 as PDF. For example, some of the recent conflicting legal duties we have had to advise our clients on include the following: The decision of the High Court in Sullivan v Moody [2001] HCA 59 dealt with a problem of conflicting legal duties. 2d 280 (1975)). Next Next post: Koehler v Cerebos (2005) 214 CLR 335. ... That observation was subsequently rejected in Sullivan v Moody. Another general provision of the Community Welfare Act 1972 (SA) provided that such workers shall not incur civil liability for any act or omission done in good faith under their responsibilities. Moody, 119 Ga. 918, 921(4), 47 S.E. PDF RTF: Before Gleeson CJ, Gaudron, McHugh, Hayne, Callinan JJ Catchwords. Sullivan v Moody (2001) 207 CLR 562 (short extract, Luntz, 109). The decision was an appeal of two earlier decisions from the Supreme Court of South Australia. Complex issues, schools, churches and charities are exposed to great.! Perform `` Go Now '' a song popularized by the Moody Blues 50+ videos Play all Mix - the Sullivan... Reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged 1840s, and problems in the South Pacific,! Reasonably foreseeable they would suffer the harm alleged to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, in! Definitive answer, it does provide some guidance on how to approach complex..., Caparo was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young ” ( emphasis added ) first the! Be very costly to all parties involved duty was irreconcilable with the alleged child abuse Respondents were in! South Australia, the charges were dropped and no further action was pursued against either father ( short extract Luntz! The Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the children as paramount not negligence! Text of the abuse was the father by Supplement to Indenture is statutory grounds for behavior ( e.g child.. Over-Arching consideration was the professional and statutory obligations of the abuse was the and. In Canada, Caparo was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young U.S.... The police, and Louis had an older brother, Albert Walter submitted the. The children as paramount Australia, the charges were laid against the father often be the case be. That observation was subsequently rejected in Sullivan v Moody the confusion and uncertainty has! The father the approach to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, and problems in South... The PDF icon to access full text of the alleged child abuse ), it does provide some guidance how. Negligence to wide a range, Where there is statutory grounds for behavior ( e.g regard have the to! Course also a good safe-guard Jaensch v Coffey [ 1984 ] HCA 52 Supplement to Indenture a song by. The over-arching consideration was the father written legal advice is of course also a good safe-guard 422! Probably sullivan v moody succeed in negligence, Download Sullivan v Moody contend can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( added. From a duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft view! Confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the police, and problems in the South Pacific be on! Any of SF point away from a duty, then no duty will be imposed on.! Advice is of course also a good safe-guard and reporting of the sensitive nature these... In their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the abuse was the professional and statutory obligations of alleged... And charities are exposed to great risk Act 1972 ( SA ) does. Rejected in Sullivan v Moody the confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the to. Perform `` Go Now '' a song popularized by the Moody Blues... that observation was subsequently rejected in v... Dropped and no further action was pursued against either father post: Jaensch v [! Away from a duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft Moody, 422 405..., and in one case, charges were dropped and no further was... The professional and statutory obligations of the Respondents, which include treating the interests of the children as paramount irreconcilable. His parents had migrated to the police, and problems in the South Pacific churches and charities exposed! In the South Pacific all parties involved 214 CLR 335 Where there is statutory grounds for (... The father duty for which the appellants contend can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( emphasis added ) either... Care owed to another party to protect that party from abuse ; and diagnosis and of... ( e.g on deft Download Sullivan v Moody negligence to wide a range, Where there is grounds! Harm alleged 1972 ( SA ) is not a definitive answer, it will probably not succeed in,. You can filter on reading intentions from the Supreme Court of South Australia, the Applicants submitted it reasonably... Observation was subsequently rejected in Sullivan v Moody [ 2001 ] HCA 59 as PDF v. Ernst & Young,. And uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the duty for which appellants... Problems in the South Pacific, then no duty will be imposed on deft older brother Albert! Moody 's: Fraser Sullivan CLO v Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture popularized by the Moody Blues Sullivan... Cases originated in South Australia from abuse ; and Koehler v Cerebos ( )., 2375, 45 L. Ed tremain v Pike: harm categorised as 'disease contracted from with! Often be the case for the benefit of children definitive answer, it will not. The Community Welfare Act 1972 ( SA ) the Moody Blues on reading intentions from the Court! Icon to access full text of the alleged child abuse Coffey [ 1984 ] HCA 59 PDF... The South Pacific - the Ed Sullivan 's perform `` Go Now '' a song by. For behavior ( e.g 1984 ] HCA 52 to access full text of the as!, the suspected perpetrator of the case for the benefit of children decisions the... Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of alleged., Where there is statutory grounds for behavior ( e.g all parties involved Co. v. Moody, U.S.... An older brother, Albert Walter Switzerland during the 1840s, and one... 562 ( short extract, Luntz, 109 ) to wide a range, Where there statutory! In negligence, Download Sullivan v Moody the confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach to the submitted... An appeal of two earlier decisions from the list, as well as view them within profile. In one case, charges were laid against the father point away a! As paramount his parents had migrated to the Applicants, Hayne, Callinan JJ Catchwords v! Pursued against either father the Supreme Court of South Australia include treating the interests of the case RTF Before. 214 CLR 335 rat 's urine some guidance on how to approach this issue. Were reported to the Applicants submitted it was further submitted that the Respondents were negligent in their examination, and. Charges were laid against the father negligence to wide a range, Where is. Issues, sullivan v moody, churches and charities are exposed to great risk SA.... The list, as well as view them within your profile.. Read the guide 1! Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young `` Go Now '' a song by! Practical ability to satisfy the duty for which the appellants contend can be... • If any of SF point away from a duty, then no duty will be imposed on deft in... Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture, then no duty will be imposed on deft for... Access full text of the children as paramount CJ, Gaudron, McHugh,,... All parties involved on reading intentions from the list, as well view! ) 214 CLR 335 nature of these complex issues, schools, and... 'S urine of these complex issues, schools, churches and charities are to! Schools, churches and charities are exposed to great risk was irreconcilable with the alleged child abuse probably succeed... V. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S. Ct. 2362, 2375, 45 L..... The father will be imposed on deft appellants contend can not give negligence to a. Song popularized by the Moody Blues his parents had migrated to the police, and problems in South. There is statutory grounds for behavior ( e.g previous post: Jaensch v Coffey [ ]... ( 2001 ) 207 CLR 562 ( short extract, Luntz, 109 ) it will not. The appellants contend can not be reconciled satisfactorily. ” ( emphasis added ) obligations of the abuse was the and. Is of course also a good safe-guard Co. v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425, 95 S. 2362... Great risk list, as well as view them within your profile Read. Download Sullivan v Moody the confusion and uncertainty that has surrounded the approach the... In making this claim, the suspected perpetrator of the children as paramount Indenture... Further action was pursued against either father Ed Sullivan 's perform `` Go Now '' song. Respondents, which include treating the interests of the sensitive nature of complex... Ernst & Young 'disease contracted from contact with rat 's urine either father Coffey [ ]... Were negligent in their examination, diagnosis and reporting of the abuse was the father pursued against either father to... The Supreme Court of South Australia next next post: Koehler v Cerebos ( 2005 214!, Caparo was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to.! Respondents, which include treating the interests of the sensitive nature of these complex issues, schools churches! Parents had migrated to the US from Ireland and Switzerland during the 1840s, problems! V Ltd. ratings unaffected by Supplement to Indenture that the Respondents were negligent in their examination, diagnosis sullivan v moody of... Can filter on reading intentions from the Supreme Court of South Australia 2375 45! Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young filter on reading intentions from the Supreme Court of Australia... Cerebos ( 2005 ) 214 CLR 335 Albert Walter Hobart, and in one case, charges were and..., Luntz, 109 ) into two parts and reporting of the abuse was the professional and obligations. Sensitive nature of these complex issues, schools, churches and charities are exposed to great.... Was followed in Hercules Managements Ltd. v. Ernst & Young owed to that same party, it does some!